Human-centered papers experimentally contribute sound and interesting findings that have the potential to improve robot technology for interacting with humans with respect to usability, design, and similar topics.

Submissions for Full Papers are due on Tuesday, September 10, 2013 by 11:59:59 PDT. Submit your papers through the “paper submission and review” website. All authors are strongly encouraged to participate in the review process.

Formatting

All papers for the conference must be submitted in PDF format and conform to ACM SIG Proceedings specifications.

Submitting

The HRI 2014 review process is not double-blind. Supplementary materials (such as videos) can be attached to submissions. External links to videos and supplementary material in your paper are also allowed.

Review criteria

All papers must make an original and substantive contribution to the field of human-robot interaction (HRI). Authors should clearly articulate the paper’s contribution to the field.

Originality.All papers must present original work. Authors should clearly articulate how the contribution relates to other work in HRI as well as the fields of study on which the paper draws. Submissions should not have been previously published or be under simultaneous review for any other conference or journal. Please consult with program co-chairs in advance of the submission deadline if you are not sure whether a previously published paper unduly or inappropriately overlaps with your current submission.

Novelty.The HRI conference is the place for innovative ideas. We welcome ‘big idea’ and provocative papers, even if they may not be perfectly implemented. We also welcome papers that bring together different disciplines and approaches.

Relevance.We invite broad participation. We welcome research with roots in robotics, psychology, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, HCI, human factors, organizational behavior, simulation, design, anthropology, and many other fields. As noted earlier, however, all papers must be relevant to the field of HRI. For example, a paper that describes a new face tracking algorithm or involves an elderly population needs to establish how the results directly contribute to HRI.

Soundness.A paper needs to be technologically and/or methodologically sound based on the criteria generally used for that technology or method within a given field.

For technology-centered papers.Please provide adequate details to indicate what was done, how the data were collected, sample size and characteristics, what type of robot was involved if the case, ,whether a wizard of oz technique was used, which part was controlled by a wizard, etc. Authors should use correct terminology for their methods to avoid being evaluated against the incorrect set of criteria. For example, a user study of 5 people should be referred to as a user study and not an experiment. For papers with experiments, standards used in psychology for conducting and reporting experiments should be used. In addition, the paper would likely articulate its contribution either to design implications for a robot in the future or to basic science related to human-robot interaction.

For human-centered papers.Please provide adequate detail to indicate what was done, how the data was collected, from how many people, the characteristics of these people, what type of robot was involved (if a robot was used), if a wizard of oz technique was used, which part was controlled by a wizard, etc. Authors should give care to use correct terminology for their methods to avoid being evaluated against the incorrect set of criteria. For example, a user study of 5 people should be referred to as a user study and not an experiment. For papers with experiments, standards used in psychology for conducting and reporting experiments should be used. In addition, the paper would likely articulate its contribution either to design implications for a robot in the future or to basic science related to human-robot interaction.

Methodological flexibility.We recognize that different methods provide different ways of generating important knowledge in HRI. Thus we want to emphasize that we will treat all methods as valid a priori and evaluate each of them based on the contributions that they make to HRI.

Accessibility.All papers must be written to be accessible for a broad, interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary HRI audience.

Policy for a conflict of interest in the review process

A “conflict of interest” is defined as follows:

Ph.D. thesis advisor or advisee

Postdoctoral advisor or advisee

Collaborators or co-authors for the past 48 months

Any other individual or institution with which the investigator has financial ties

Reviewers

A reviewer who has a conflict of interest regarding one of the co-authors of a paper cannot review the respective paper. Please decline the review request if you have a conflict of interest for the assigned paper. In this case, the PC member in charge will find an alternative reviewer.

Program Committee (PC) Members

A PC member who has a conflict of interest for a paper will not handle that paper in either a primary or secondary role, and will not participate in the decision process of the paper.

Program Co-Chairs

A program co-chair who has a conflict of interest for a paper will not participate in the review process for the paper. In the case where both program co-chairs have a conflict of interest, one of the persons below, who does not have a conflict of interest, in the following order, will lead the review process. She/he will take the role of “assigning the primary and secondary PC member”, and lead the discussion of the paper at the PC meeting to decide acceptance/rejection of the paper.